NAMA’s third €200,000-a-year developer sues Minister for defamation

He might be best known to you generally from Rita O’Reilly’s Prime Time special in December 2010 when Cork developer Michael O’Flynn was secretly filmed arising from the grounds of his home in an Agusta Westland helicopter on his way to Down Royal to watch his racehorse compete for the laurels. But unlike some others in that programme, Michael’s loans, which had been acquired by NAMA, are understood to be performing. Today he is named by the Independent as the third NAMA developer paid €200,000 a year – the other two are understood to be Ballymore’s Sean Mulryan and Dundrum Shopping Centre’s Joe O’Reilly; the full range of NAMA salaries is set out here. Remember that NAMA developers can earn income from other sources and may be working on profit-sharing arrangements which can generate millions.

Michael is also suing junior minister for Europe, Lucinda Creighton after comments made by the minister at the McGill Summer School and subsequently on radio and in the press. The comments followed news that Michael had attended a fund-raising Fine Gael golf tournament at the K Club in Kildare in 2010. The case is finally set to be heard this week by Mr Justice Eamon de Valera. Minister Creighton denies the accusation of defamation.

As near as I’ve been able to discern from the very taciturn coverage of this story in the media, Mr. O’Flynn appears to be claiming defamation because Lucinda Creighton suggested he had at one time been, in his capacity as a developer, inside the FF Galway tent. Shocking stuff indeed.

Is it also not well publicised that he never signed personal guarantees, so could walk away from it all if he wanted to and let NAMA pick up the pieces. Further logic behind paying him 200 k a year to continue to work on the projects and not lose all the inherint knowledge he has on the projects.

I think that you have misunderstood the significance of the tax case and have been more than a bit unfair. It’s not a case of defaulting on tax or not paying or dodging what is due.

It is a case where the Supreme Court decided an entirely new interpretation of tax law that the professionals have been years awaiting because this area is new territory and most if not all people were operating in the dark without a conclusive decision from the Courts. It is not necessarily something that that reflects badly on Michael O’Flynn. Those who work in the area tell me that the key point in the majority judgement is that the taxpayer (O’Flynn in this case) complied fully with the legislation creating the relief claimed, and what was done at that level was perfectly lawful and this was accepted by all sides, even the Revenue. The majority judge said the relevant tax Revenue rules he had to decide on were “of mind-numbing complexity“. But even so, going forward, because of this case Revenue will have to engage in an exercise, if not of discretion, then at least of evaluation and judgment about whether tax is payable or not. (That might be news to people filing their taxes at this time of year). This case is a distinct change of approach in tax law where previously if it was lawful it was generally allowed.

By the way it was a 3-2 split in the Supreme Court and there were two minority Supreme Court judges that violently disagreed with the majority (and indeed with you) – one saying that “it would be impossible to hold that the purpose of the relief could be said to have been either abused or misused in this case”.

Before you try to attack the man further it would only be fair to have a better handle on why the case is significant and what the judges actually said.

@Niall any idea the amounts involved in this tax avoidance scheme?
The interest and penalties must be up there,hope he has the cash.
NAMA were queried by the PAC regarding whether or not its “cooperating” clients were up to date and current on taxes,Frank x Revenue kinda smirked,gave a non answer,but said they worked closely together.We know from 200,000 a year Joe O’Reilly’s no show recently before a Dail committe what NAMA thinks of them.